What has not changed when passing laws in Brussels over 25 years – some personal reflections

I re-watched a Channel 4 documentary, Brussels Behind Closed Doors,  from 1999 that tracked the passage of a piece of air quality legislation. It is still the most realistic fly-on-the-wall look at how a piece of law is made. It’s dated but realistic.

I wanted to understand how much has changed over 25 + years. The short answer is not much.

It shows the back and forth between 3 sides – governments, MEPs and the Commission – with industry, NGOs, scientists, and local governments bringing forward their ideas and solutions.

If you want excitement, passing laws it is not for you. The proposal was published on 8 November 1997 and in the Official Journal on 22 April 1999—just 530 days.

I was the political adviser for the Rapporteur of the file.  This is the final law – Council Directive 1999/30/EC

Constants Throughout the Ages

There are many constants over the decades. I’ve listed them below.

  • The success of a proposal stands on the unique skill set of the desk officer. In the Commission, the official who prepared the proposal is tasked with taking it through. Many other jurisdictions separate this work.
  • In the EP, the first question you need to ask the Commission is what got removed in inter-service consultation. In this case, what DG GROW get removed from the proposal.
  • The Commission’s mindset is based on getting a sympathetic hearing from the EP’s Environment Committee. This was naive even then.
  • If you want to get a law passed, there is one thing you need – votes. Votes in the Council and the EP. You won’t get what you want if you don’t have the votes.The Commissioner and their Cabinet were more politically astute and ambitious than the Services.The core skill to get your case taken up is the rare ability to present your case clearly – in writing and speaking – along with viable solutions and evidence.
  • A great way to get your position adopted is by being pleasant and civil.
  • Input from all players helps improve the quality of the proposal. The air quality proposals were developed by the Commission with significant deliberative consultation with the Member States, industry, NGOs, local government, and scientific experts – a three years process. This all helped expedite the adoption of the final legislative proposal. The time invested beforehand saved time getting the file adopted.
  • All politics is local. In the back of the mind of the MEP, is how their work on the proposal will play in their constituency. And, as a rule, it counts for little.
  • The desk officer will take the file through with the oversight of the Head of the Unit and Director and, as and when needed, the Director-General and Commissioner (or their Cabinet lead). That is about 5 people.
  • Passing a law is a process of compromise. If you don’t like compromise, you are going to find this work hard.
  • The progress of a file in the Council stands a lot on the interest of the Presidency and the negotiating abilities of the Presidency’s chair.
  • The Commission desk officer is the one individual with a foothold in the work of the EP and the Council Working Group.
  • The Council Working Group go through a proposal Article by Article. Once agreed upon, a compromise is hard to undo.
  • No one country gets everything it wants.
  • In the Commission, after each Council Working Group or Committee meeting, the official will debrief the Head of the Unit. A note is circulated to the Cabinet.
  • Industry and NGOs are there to help or hinder a proposal’s adoption.
  • Industry’s speaking points would not be out of place today.
    It takes time for people to wake up. Usually, people wake up too late in the day.
  • The people who step in early, with evidence and solutions, have the best chance of getting their positions taken on board.
  • Some countries and political groups oppose all progress. They tend to be ignored.
  • A minister’s intervention back home will lead to civil servants changing their minds.
  • The Presidency chair’s job is to get the compromise agreement.
  • There are many bi-lateral discussions and meetings between the Presidency, EP Rapporteur and the Commission. The goal is getting an agreement.
  • Many of the discussions happen over email and phone calls.
  • Several concernss that governments and industry thought would have devastating impacts  – e.g. public information and limit values- did not materialise.
  • Politicians in the Council and the EP have the ultimate power, but the Commission, Europe’s civil service, has already defined the options and limited the agenda for discussion.
  • Most key decisions are taken behind closed doors between a mix of officials and technical experts.
  • The Commission and governments will delegate technical advice to technical experts from governments, industry, and others (e.g., WHO), as well as consultants.
  • In the EP, often the most challenging part is getting support from one’s political group.
  • It is good to meet those MEPs and stakeholders tabling amendments to get clarification and to say whether you support them or not.
  • The Chair of the ENVI Committee’s greatest power is where they put you on the Committee agenda for each meeting.
  • MEPs will liaise with their national government. If the MEP is in the opposition party, they may vote against the government’s line.
  • Some governments have an official who lobbies the country’s MEPs and present voting lists.
  • It takes time to grow a positive reputation in the Committee. Start by working on less high-profile initiatives. Put the work in.
  • Getting the lead – Rapporteur – requires points.
  • Good luck helps to get your file adopted. We had an episode of poor air pollution and health alerts on the day of the vote.
  • A good move is to give all interests a win. Accept at least one of their amendments to show you have listened to them.
  • A politician’s job is to make decisions – sometimes difficult decisions. They are not pursits.
  • Most of the work is done in English.
  • The clarity you need to explain an issue to a Politician – a commissioner or MEP – is a lot more demanding than a briefing for an official.
  • A final law is a global compromise.
  • A skilled Presidency Chair is a supreme conciliator, negotiator, diplomat, tough and pleasant person. A hard combination. They don’t need to be a technical/scientific expert.
  • WHO was not trusted by some because of BSE.
  • Avoid purist theological debates about following (WHO) scientific advice.
  • Scientific advice is often not clear or commonly agreed to by scientific experts. Scientific experts find it hard to write for non-scientific experts.
  • Many objections to compromise texts are removed after a good night’s sleep.
  • The Commission doesn’t have the staff to do everything it has been tasked to do.
  • Bureaucrats propose, and politicians decide.
  • Scientific advice is rarely certain.
  • Commission officials tend to be too cautious on levels of ambition. The scientific uncertainty in this case was clarified soon after, and it took a few years for the legislation to be updated.
  • Before tabling a proposal, sound out countries and interests on the concept of a proposal.
  • All legislative negotiations are a process of compromise and a search for an agreement.